Some of you may be interested in Gavin's Schmidt's forthcoming talk at Exeter University. It's hard to deny his expertise in the area.

Climate change is now a constant presence in the media with many stories about the latest records in global heat, Arctic ice loss, sea level rise, or the potential for changes in extreme weather. But many people still have questions about how scientists study the Earth system, where the dramatic predictions of future change come from, and how credible they are.

In this talk Dr Schmidt will discuss the use and abuse of climate simulations, how they are used to attribute changes in the past and what they suggest for the future. He will specifically discuss how global society now has to choose its own adventure and what the implications of these choices will be.

In a discussion regarding an incorrect latent heat of water vaporization in models (an error of up to 3%), Gavin stated "Eventually, all the models will do this properly (some do already), but it is not trivial – but neither is it hugely important."

Three percent here, three percent there. The average surface temperature of populated lands is about 300 K, 3% error is an error of 9 degrees K, same as 9 degrees Celsius. And IPCC worries about 2 degrees C?

"He will specifically discuss how global society now has to choose its own adventure and what the implications of these choices will be."

That's like a traffic cop giving a speech on the role of Interpol in post Brexit Europe. The Gavin should stick to fiddling with computer models. That he wants to tell us his political opinion casts doubt on his impartiality. No wonder Trump wants shot of him.

Schmidt's lecture on how right he always is, is on the 10th January. This is before Trump becomes President. Is it known how long Schmidt's overseas triumphal tour of the EU is?

I am concerned that once President, Trump may display his blunt problem solving ability by simply having his return Air Ticket cancelled. Sacked AND deported by one Executive Order, the UK could have it's first Climate Science refugee.

Gavin is for sure more knowledgable about the abuse part of climate models than the use part. No tropical troposphere hotspot as modeled. No accelerating SLR as modeled. Observational sensitivity half of climate models. His own GISS temps run through homogenization models to cool the past and warm the present.Perhaps he is auditioning for a job at Exeter, as it appears he will need one come 21 January 2017.

I am unable to suppress my feelings of morbid fascination with PC's jibe. It's not just the implication that an expression of mere hopefulness for honesty is somehow praiseworthy and qualifies as a sanitiser for the preceding anti-social remark by the much-travelled Schneider; it's also the fact that I have no idea what is meant by a McIntyre/Montford level of selectivity.

If levels of selectivity can be attributed to individuals, I wonder what a Mannian level might be? One example of the Maestro's talent in this field (and we are spoiled for choice here) is his algorithm's arbitrary assignment of a 390 times greater weight to the hockey-stick friendly Sheep Mountain bristlecone pines as compared to the more representative (in terms of similarity to the typical proxy) Mayberry Slough series. One could go on in this vein for a very long time, as ClimateAudit has extensively documented.

Any selectivity that Steve McIntyre or the Bish have ever exhibited, has, in my opinion, been both trivial and inadvertent. Which stands in stark comparison with Team players, whose selectivity over the years has been virtually the defining characteristic of their corpus, and has ultimately proved fatal to their conclusions and their credibility.

Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters.Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job?With disrespect…

Comment by Rashit Herimentov at Climate Audit. Rashit is a distinguished field dendrochronolgist, who collected the data that underpinned McIntyre's blog speculations. He has many distinguished peer-reviewed publications to his name.

Funny how an acolyte of a minor religion, like Phil, can keep convincing themselves they are right. And keep convincing themselves they are converting the unwashed.You are not, Phil. People are laughing at you and your sandwich board.

He should be bitter. In the ascendancy, he had the option to be calm, reasonable and to engage. He chose to call names, rant, obfuscate and avoid the debate. He chose to push the ideology and ignore the science, he chose to spin rather than be straight.He has been trumped

added nothing. caused insult and hurt. not even the saving grace of being funny or wise

He chose to push the ideology and ignore the science, he chose to spin rather than be straight.

Blimey, he's back. Project much, EO? For the science, see (for example) links above. Or the dozens of other peer-reviewed sources I've cited - as opposed to the finest blog science from TV weathermen and accountants.

Or indeed, just ask every scientific association in existence.

But time is precious, I depart and leave you you to blow sunshine up each others' deluded bottoms.

But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.

The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.

But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.

But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.

Pielke Jr is not a climate scientist. But Investigating scientists is now a bad thing? Did anyone tell Trump, Cuccinelli, Barton (et al)?

Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels.

Researchers have detected and (in some cases) attributed a human influence in other measures of climate extremes beyond those discussed in this testimony, including surface temperatures (heat waves) and in some measures of precipitation.

The inability to detect and attribute increasing trends in the incidence of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and drought does not mean that human-caused climate change is not real or of concern

I watched my brother give a speech to Toronto Sick Children's hospital (I was at the back of the lecture theatre) in which he declared he would no longer respond to requests from hospital lawyers to cover up the deaths of (burns unit) children caused by his colleagues.

As he said to me afterwards, 'a doctor looks after his patients, a rat looks after his fellow rats'. It's rats like Kerry Emanuel that have driven Pielke out of the climate field.